The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference.
To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply.
For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

Another Question about Agricola. I tried to edit some of the bilingual pages, which have german Text eg. Pagina:Cornelii Taciti - Agricola.djvu/59, but in edit mode only the latin text appeared. Whats wrong? --Catrin 08:11, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Catrin: Nothing wrong: edit a page: on the left, near the "magnifying lens" button : clic on it and you'll be able to edit the German text hosted in the lower separate box.

VIGNERON: I think we should take that German text outside the footer, put Latin and German texts in separate labeled sections and transclude the Latin text in namespace0. It's a little less smooth, but prevents what Catrin has just written. What do you think? - εΔω 16:39, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the footer was a bad temporary solution. I will correct it. Section are far better but instead of section=1 and section=2, I would prefer section=la and section=de (it seems more explicit for me), is there an opposition ? Cdlt, VIGNERON 11:41, 12 Maii 2010 (UTC)

No opposition. The more explicit, the better they are. We are on a multilingual project. As for the German commentary, we have thee choices:

Leaving it on the page namespace: no harm, but no chance to read or print it decently.

Transcluding it here (but breaking the rule "Only Latin texts here")

Transcluding it on Oldwikisource through Iwpage transclusion (but it could cause some diplomatic incidents).

Hello Wikipedians, my name is Kelly and I am working for the Wikimedia Foundation during the 2010 Fundraiser. My job is to be the liaison between the Latina community and the Foundation. This year's fundraiser is intended to be a collaborative and global effort; we recognize that banner messages which may perform well in the United States don't necessarily translate well, or appeal to international audiences.
I'm contacting you as I am currently looking for translators who are willing to contribute to this project by helping translate and localize messages into Latina and suggesting messages that would appeal to Latina readers on the Fundraising Meta Page. We've started the setup on meta for both banner submission, statistical analysis, and grouping volunteers together.Use the talk pages on meta, talk to your local communities, talk to others, talk to us, and add your feedback to the proposed messages as well! I look forward to working with you during this year's fundraiser. If someone could translate this message I would really appreciate it so that everyone is able to understand our goals and contribute to this year's campaign.Klyman 16:16, 21 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that these were useful changes. The Scriptor page should introduce an author and his works to the general public, and a link to a special technical tool for Wikisource editors is rather confusing. The Scriptor page itself lists the works of an author, and those works available within Wikisource have little progress indicators like shown next to them. Besides, the new link to Special:IndexPages is broken as it uses only the first name of an author.--Matthead 12:57, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

Announcing the creation of a new interlingual cooperative WikiProject- WikiProject Translation! The goal is inter-wiki collaboration with the aim of making source texts available in multiple languages. The project is very much in the formation phase, and would benefit from voices giving input. Please feel free to express any ideas, concerns, or questions at the project talk page. In the spirit of the project, please translate this message! --Eliyak 09:36, 10 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki-Bot is beginning to make some demonstration edits very slowly and under full supervision.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 05:43, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

It looks good so far. Could you let us know when the bot has been approved on a bigger Wikisource project. John Vandenberg 06:21, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Bot has requested approval on de and has given notice on en, technically de incorporates en policy which says interwiki language bots don't need approval. I will let you know when the bot is flagged elsewhere.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 11:29, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

As I've worked on my interwiki bot, I've been interested to note that a lot of small projects like ours have a habit of having detailed instructions translated or at least summarized in English but hidden behind a mainpage that the average passerby can't read. Considering our particular draw to students and others who aren't fluent readers of Latin, what would people think about either 1) an English language version of the mainpage or 2) a set of multilingual intro pages linked from the main page with, e.g. "Don't know Latin?/Verstehen nicht lateinisch?/(etc.)"? The latter would be easier to maintain and more universal than the former; but the former would allow most users to get the idea of what the mainpage said. When I first came to la.ws, I was baffled by the apparent need to be nearly fluent in Latin just to get by the mainpage. As I poked around and got help from folks such as John Vandenberg and others, especially on IRC, I found it really isn't that hard to get around and to transcribe Latin but communicate in English; but this wasn't immediately obvious. At the very least, I think we need to have a section of the mainpage that is English and gives basic navigation. I'd be more than happy to set up some drafts for discussion, if there's no opposition to the idea. --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 20:12, 14 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Just saw how el does it and I'll model on that for a prototype. They have three versions of their mainpage, one in modern Greek, one in Ancient Greek, and one in English: el:Κύρια_Σελίδα/English.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 13:44, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Usor:Aramgar is an op but has been retired from all projects since June 2009[1], with the exception of three edits on en.wp last June. His comment on retiring from this project is in reference to the entire Wikimedia Project, not just la.ws, as can be seen from his comments on en.wp and on la.wp. Although the idea of de-opping inactive users is rejected on many projects and I have no problem with inactive ops, especially on a small project where there is no reason to think they are actually gone; expressly retired users are often noted as a security risk since their accounts may be targets for hacking and may become compromised, particularly as older accounts may not have good passwords. Additionally, anyone who has expressly retired can be presumed to have resigned the mop. I suggest we consider de-opping Usor:Aramgar without prejudice towards re-opping should he ever return.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 16:55, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

In small projects like this I think that using common sense should still be enough. I'm always afraid that a decision on a single case could be used as a guideline like a machete, but let me be confident on your knowledge of this context.

As for Aramgar, if

His purpose to leave WMF project is out of any doubt,

He is not just "on wikivacancy", but he declares himself "retired"

He has been warned about this decision.

His resignment implies leaving his mop unguarded,

This decision comes out of a consensus signed by many users,

Then we can proceed: I have no opposition about his desysoping. Let other users put their sign under mine. - εΔω 17:11, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the general point about desysoping, Commons has a regular sweep of inactive sysops, English Wikisource has annual reconfirmations, and Multilingual Wikisource has periodically removed inactive sysops. I think the Multilingual Wikisource approach is an appropriate level of bureaucracy for Latin Wikisource. While security concerns are a valid reason to remove inactive sysops as a preventative measure, I believe it is also important to keep the sysop list in sync with the set of people who can be called on to help. John Vandenberg 20:20, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I still remain unconvinced of the value of this project. There are so many better places on the Internet to find Latin texts of known provenance. The Latin Library is superior to this site in every respect. The Packard Institute will send you a free CD with the whole of Latin literature up to Late Antiquity on it. Vicifons, however, is filled with third rate editions and mongrel version made more idiosyncratic by drive-by 'improvements'. (Vicifons Horace, by the way, is not what it purports to be) Occasionally in my reading, I find something really obscure, the Anthologia Latina or the Cento Probae for instance, texts not included in either the Latin Library or the Packard CD. I frequently type out these sort of texts by way of becoming a more engaged reader. I have in the past uploaded these texts here, which seems rather silly now because the most recent editions of such works are usually available on GoogleBooks. I may yet add things here, but not as Aramgar. Aramgar is happy to cede the mop for a pointless wiki to somebody more qualified, perhaps somebody with OCD, Asperger's, or a wish to emulate Sisyphus. Aramgar 01:43, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC) P.S. John Vandenberg used to seem like such a nice guy.

I thought about importer rights for myself, but after reading the requirements it seems like you're asking for a gold medal in an Olympic contest. Until licence let me fiddle with the code we still can get through, even of with dirtier hands...

My concerns are the following:

are we going to wait for Babel extension forever.... just to discover that we don't like it?

If your answer is no, let me introduce the following:

Are we going to implement the "template:User language" system?

If your answer is no, let's work for another system.

If your answer is yes, let's plan a customization policy to tailor the system exactly to our needs and tastes.

My POV:

I've already introduced meta's system into a pre-existent babel system in it.wikisource. We should pay attention to some legacy issues that here can be handled before any further step.

It's been some time since I'm thinking about using labeled sections to store most of babel content into one or very few pages to which many babel template would point. That'd be a new approach but after some failed experimentation I need some technical advice to put it into action.

By the way: I'd be happy to share this both on en. and la.source. - εΔω 11:22, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Jay, what do you mean? Translatewiki.net has had this a long time but is not an MWF project (and the link to MW in the article is spurious they really intend to link to Translatewiki). I don't see any indication here or at MW that this has ever been taken up for approval for use on WMF projects. It works but it isn't deployed and the last indication on MW was that it isn't going to happen any time soon unless someone can convince development to test it. See this discussion: mw:User talk:MinuteElectron#Babel extension - ready to deploy? and my other comments here: en:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Babel extension; I don't believe we can continue to wait indefinitely for this in the vain hope that it will be out soon.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 09:11, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

It is not ready to deploy yet because the messages havent been translated. translatewiki is not a WMF project, but translatewiki and mediawiki are becoming very closely linked together. John Vandenberg 07:20, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Pathoschild to import his "user language" system with support for a few major languages. He's looking at incorporating Orbilius's single page of data for language data over the next few days. If we like his system, we can deprecate the old babel userboxes. My understanding is that everyone agrees, Pathoschild included, that the extension would be the best solution for all but it is not an option now and won't be anytime soon.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 11:01, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before, maybe a year or two ago, but I've taken the liberty of filing a bugzilla to enable importing from most of the major Romantic language subspaces plus English, German, and Greek as well as from la.wp and la.wb. You can vote on the bug importance or add more languages by editing the bug at the link above. Statements in favor or opposed can go here. Thanks.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 20:22, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Purpose: custom replace or add jobs on works that I'm editing such as basic formatting or adding a template across a work as well as running djvutext.py on works I'm about to edit. The bot would also be available for broader work when required such as replacing categories, but no work outside of individual works is planned.

If mw:Extension:Babel is approved by the devs (bugzilla:15308), would Latin Wikisource be willing to test it? Six other small projects have requested it to be installed. If there is more support, it is easier for the WMF to justify asking a dev to look at it. John Vandenberg 01:17, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Support - there seems to be some progress on this at WMF due to pushing from John. However, we need to continue with other processes above in case this continues to take years.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 08:21, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Neutral As I wrote before, I don't like its lack of customization. On the other hand I completed my beta-testing on vec.source: now I can show a complete system in two pages: This page shows the action of this page and these sections: no hassle, everything is already there. - εΔω 16:48, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)

John, OrbiliusMagister has translated the extension to Latin: [4]. I also noticed Tim Starling poking about the Bugzilla so maybe it really will happen. :-)--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 11:12, 25 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Bless you OrbiliusMagister! What customisation would you like? John Vandenberg 10:09, 26 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Well, John, after years spent wandering through projects and discussing about many features of this system there is almost none of them that I wouldn't like to be easily customized. Let me show some examples:

I propose we deprecate the old redirects from mainspace to authorspace (and any other cross-namespace redirects). The search engine is fully capable of finding the authorspace pages so these are unnecessary and they can create conflicts for works about the authors. Furthermore, I've found some pages that were never actually redirected and that had strange things done to them (e.g. Carl Friedrich Gauß), so it would be best to just remove them all.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 21:57, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)

that's a sound idea, but I'm afraid that some wikisources still have their interwikis pointing to those redirect. It would take a long survey to inspect this issue. - εΔω 18:06, 7 Martii 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point, though interwiki languages links that are broken can be picked up by language link bots like my Interwiki-Bot. Links from la.wp would be harder to track down, but really should be limited to the article about the author. I can delink the pages and then blank the pages and nominate for deletion.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 19:37, 7 Martii 2011 (UTC)

If you can work it out, that's fine with me. - εΔω 10:31, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)

The following two accounts are for long inactive bots with inactive users. I propose we remove their flags. This is not suggested as a negative action but so that we can easily notice should they suddenly become active. I know that the first one is marginally active and highly respected elsewhere (en.ws in particular) and the second is active on commons and en.wp; but we should know if either suddenly starts using his bot on la.ws again. An inactive bot account can become a risk as if it were compromised it could do a lot of damage before it was noticed, especially on a project like ours where activity is very low; so the actual damage might go unnoticed but for the edits in recent changes. Additionally, bots that sit inactive for years with inactive users suggest the reasons they were originally flagged no longer exist. Two other bots are inactive but have relatively active handlers, so I do not suggest we remove their flags (ThomasBot and JVbot). For the two users below, I will notify them of this discussion and I suggest that the closing decision be posted to their talk pages with a clear statement that this is not derogatory re-flagging will not require discussion but me be requested at anytime, simply by leaving a notice here.

I approve the removal of the flag for White Cat's bot, however I think Zhaladshar's bot should remain an approved bot if he plans to occasionally use it for interwiki work. He is active on English Wikisource. John Vandenberg 09:55, 26 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Really, I think he's done using it that way, the bot converted to a more general purpose bot on en.ws and hasn't been used there either, he can get it re-flagged anytime if he starts up again. The flag isn't really permission to do interwiki work, it's permission to do it without us having to watch it flood recent changes. I highly doubt that's going to ever happen but if it does we can re-flag the bot. There are some others who haven't requested flagging that I may suggest we flag anyway if they are back again soon. I also would not call him exactly active on en.ws - his bot ever so much more so.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 11:11, 26 Martii 2011 (UTC)

I waited for some time because I'm going to learn from your words. My opinion is different, but I don'know if it's wrong.

If a bot isn't used it doesn't do any harm. A bot doesn't flood RC while inactive, nor we expect it to be run by a different user... so if it gets active again it shouldn't be a problem, so what harm is caused by keeping it flagged? If an inactive bot is to be unflagged we'll need a bureaucrat to unflag and possibly reflag it: is it necessary? I feel I'm missing some piece of policy. - εΔω 16:08, 26 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Because the only point to flagging is to say this user is both active and trusted to the point we don't need or want to see it's edits normally in the recent changes feed. If it's inactive there is no reason not to unflag it but plenty of reason to do so. Flags are not a reward, they're a technical tool for us, the other people. There is a risk if a bot account were compromised and the owner is inactive then the owner might not even notice and if flagged we wouldn't notice either until a lot of damage had occurred. It's very easy to re-flag later and none have responded even though I e-mailed them.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 13:13, 30 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Actually, these should ordinarily be transcribed here and on fr.ws should be {{iwpage|la}}. --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 20:01, 27 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, not so clear, they have French footnotes. God, I wish we weren't so Balkanized. Maybe works like this belong on muli-wikisource. :-\ --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 21:53, 27 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no use in being chauvinists. That user made the best choice and we don't pride ourselves if we don't have all the exclusive control over all Latin texts: I think we should create here a page listing all such texts which are not completely in Latin, and are hosted on other wikisources: After all what they need is a willing proofreader, and I find no problem proofreading here or there.

The idea of a "multilingual hub page" in every wikisource is already present in many projects: let's revamp it. - εΔω 08:22, 28 Martii 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the chauvinism is; I'm not suggesting Latin is better than French or vice versa. The general rule (actually the practically exclusive rule) is that text that falls within the scope of one project should be considered outside the scope of other projects. If text is Latin, it belongs on la.ws, if text is French it belongs on fr.ws. When the scans are of annotations, they create a conflict between the rules. We shouldn't be transcribing them in two projects and they may well be the best available support for the original work that we have available but we don't want the annotations to be transcluded in our mainspace here and they are the very point that makes it within fr.ws's scope. The solution becomes a very awkward set of #ifeq's OR separate transcription in both projects, neither of which is really the best answer. This is because we have Balkanized into projects that are largely disconnected. I'm also ranting slightly about the larger problem with it's more day-to-day issues of different formatting and different templates, which don't relate directly to the user's request. I'm finding this particularly frustrating as I'm working on several bilingual English/Latin and French/Latin works, albeit unannotated ones.

I was not criticizing the user who posted. She or he may have even intended that we transcribe it here not just help, I don't know. I was just pointing out to anyone what we ought to do. I'm tending towards the #ifeq solution until someone comes up with a better system.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 18:56, 28 Martii 2011 (UTC)

er.. here's my en-2 gap about lexical meaning: the word chauvinism was meant with humour. Now I can't answer clearly to this problem which affected me and VIGNERON when we tried an agreeement with de.source to host the German notes in this book. I'll elaborate an answer tomorrow. - εΔω 21:08, 28 Martii 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing of your situation with the above work. Though I'm wondering if we might want to spin this off into more general discussion since I've brought us pretty far afield.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 05:22, 29 Martii 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with interwiki transclusion I faced some problems when dealing with this book. The footnotes could easily be divided through labeled sections and passed to de.source, but when I tried to share this idea with the de.source community I found these negative answers. The bold sentencs that followed

enlightened me: each project has different approaches about rules or restrictive criteria, and we are in no position to force them to do anything in their project, so sometimes text in different languages have to stay outside their proper place. I think that creating a special page to list such examples from all wikisources could be an idea. The core concept is: it doesn't matter if a page in Latin is proofread here or there, if it is proofread!

however I know that I'm proposing something of an exception to the general rule "every wikisource with its proper language" but the general principle holds true with a fair amount of pages entirely in different language. Let's go on discussing. - εΔω 17:21, 29 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Fabrice Dury has been even transcluding parts of pages - if I understand what he's doing at all - and I'm not at all sure that I do. This seems a very problematic way to handle things and an example of why our balkanized projects are bad - they just don't work for multilingual texts.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 13:39, 25 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Several regulars on German Wikisource, admins and anons alike, are rather elitist and rude. Apart from personal traits, German Wikisource is not tolerant towards "construction sites" that remain incomplete or without proofreading by others. If a user wants to add a large project, the user should have proof-read other projects before, and should provide support by other users that promise to do the proofreading. --Matthead 16:03, 28 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I ran into this there as well, it's a ridiculous rule and it destroys the ability to work on a multilingual work. They also have an additional layer of proofreading and you have to have make sure there is someone to do that too I believe. Their rules are particularly shocking when you go there thinking you can set up a German work or the German side of a multilingual work and they simply delete it, as happened to me. They then tried to get me to validate the text from a photo of a gravestone to "get me started". It was quite insulting. I'm not fluent in German and I can't read their policies in detail, but I can transcribe ancient works, apparently they don't want us to. This is just one very big example of the serious problem of our Balkanization.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 21:11, 29 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that page, you'll see too a css issue. There are running tests into it.source, one of them is related to page quality data transclusion; and you'll see a strage "226,3,Silvio Gallio" in the top of italian part of the page. If you go into it.source, those data (number of page; pagequality level; last contributor) are invisible, since there's a Common.css statement span.SAL {display:none;}. How to solve this minor issue? --Alex brollo 21:19, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

I saw that test page has been reviewed. Thanks OrbiliusMagister! I consider that edit an encouragement to go ahead as I began, and that inserting here new, cross-running templates is acceptable, when Iwpage procedure is needed. Stop me as soon as possible if I'm wrong. ;-) --Alex brollo 08:18, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome and I encourage you to go ahead. Just pay a little attention before importing many template: Just check if those templates are already present here (even with a Latin name). Then I think that if your example is followed by every user popping in from other wikisources, our Template namespace would soon become a complete babelic mess. I think that interwiki transclusion can accept a reasonable amount of "ugliness" (and in our homewiki we shouldn't indulge too much in exoteric templates :D) for the sake of simplicity. - εΔω 16:36, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess it, but perhaps saw some "red templates" into the text imported here by it.source, and I suppose that I'll see "red templates" into it.source if I use here, in Latin text, local templates unknown into it.source. Or - am I wrong? This is why I used only "standard" (en.source) templates. Luckily, there's something moving into "interwiki transclusion", and one of aims is exactly the use of templates fron other projects, without any need of importing their code. Well, I suppose that Center, Larger, X-larger, XX-larger templates are both simple and useful, and I'll do any effort to import how less templates I can. --Alex brollo 21:32, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

After pulling the pages over from enWS for Pyramus et Thisbe (which I know duplicates another version of Metamorphoses, though this one is paired English and Latin), I see that your poem formatting is one that we used to use at enWS, though we changed to prevent the spacing between close and open poem tags. Can I recommend that you have a look at en:Mediawiki:Common.css and steal our poem formatting. Billinghurst 12:00, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

YEAH! I'm a jiff away from transcluding this text and I've been thinking about this issue for some days. I'll do it very gladly. - εΔω 15:05, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

a simple way to have subtitle parameters and transcluded titles from proofread pages visually coexist.

To have this roadmap completed I can develop by myself only part of the process: I need

Consensus about this idea

consensus about the designated template

and finally a bot and its manager willing to help me.

I'm going to prepare in a sandbox this new template. Feedback is welcome! - εΔω 07:00, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

What are the three templates? I know {{titulus}} which is junk and {{titulus2}}, what's the other one?

I think it's important first to clarify do we want the header to be in addition to or in place of the the title on the title page? They seem to be frequently used "in place of" here and on fr.ws but on en.ws where a different sort of header is used altogether, they are always "in addition to" because the complete text is always to be transcribed. With the current titulus/titulus2 format, this looks awfully redundant but using it in place of the title often changes the title from the genitive to the nominative, which means it's not like the original. Another issue is where we want meta data to display and why.

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at Meta:Image filter referendum shortly.

Sorry for delivering you a message in English. Please help translate the pages on the referendum on Meta and join the translators mailing list.

Since it's been over a month and no one has commented, I thought maybe, just maybe, I should let folks know that John Vandenberg nominated me for admin in May here: [[5]], please take notice. Thanks. --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 18:54, 7 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

I have just updated the sidebar for those who have their language preferences set to English, Deutsch, or Française. If you notice any errors, please take a look and see if I got everything correct. Correct them or let me know if you don't know how. I also moved the Scriptorium up under the Main Page.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 15:30, 3 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this will not work if you have your preferences set to a dialect of one of the above languages.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 11:13, 15 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Phe-Bot is now doing match & split instead of ThomasBot. I have requested our crat flag it. Until then, he may flood the recent changes from time to time.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 16:08, 5 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

I have been cleaning up the indices (Liber namespace), there were several bad file names, redirects that were messing up special pages reports, etc. I moved a few files on commons and did a lot of work with one to get it right. There is an odd blank entry at Specialis:IndexPages (item 25 currently, though it tends to move around as indices are moved). Let me know if you see anything amiss or if you can figure out the problem with the blank index entry.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 13:50, 6 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

I will merge the two authors. I'm not even clear that Gaius Petronius Arbiter is a real name; it's used on en.wp and some other online references but it appears to me to be a conflation of Gaius Petronius/Publius Petronius Niger and Petronius Arbiter based on the conclusion by some that they were the same person. Although I think there is strong evidence that they were, I do not believe it has been established in the scholastic community as fact.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 08:28, 8 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not going to merge them until there is further comment. They have different life dates listed.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 10:45, 15 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

The dates 27-66 p.C.n. agree with the dates for Gaius Petronius / Publius Petronius Niger, the Roman statesman; so I believe the answer above the name of the author is still correct, but I don't know where the dates for Titus Petronius Arbiter come from.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 11:12, 15 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just stick to what the scholars generally agree about, that seems to be like this: his name was Petronius Arbiter, he wrote the Satyricon, and he died in 66 after the Pisonian conspiracy. And let's leave it to the scholars to decide whether his praenomen was Titus or Gaius and whether he was the same Petronius Niger that was consul in 62 or 63. Candalua 18:28, 18 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Purpose: running djvutext.py on request as well as running custom replace or add jobs on request such as basic formatting or adding a template across a work. The bot would also be available for broader work when required such as replacing categories, but no work outside of individual works is planned.

I request a flag; as I intend to run djvutext.py, I expect to be running several hundred pages at a time. --Mattwj2002 18:17, 7 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - I asked matt to bring his bot here because I need his help on some projects. I request he start running immediately for demonstration. Matt is also an admin on en.ws and also uses the bot to upload to commons, so he's experience and trusted and I'll be watching the work as I'm editing the texts.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 18:28, 7 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Since I needed matt's help on some particular jobs and since the recent changes aren't going to be any different whether he runs fast or slow, I asked him to run to djvutext.py jobs for me at full speed. I hope no one is too put out by this. Hopefully, he'll be flagged shortly and it won't matter.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 21:43, 7 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

I think we should consider changing the style of {{Scriptor}} to be more like fr:Modèle:Auteur. We have one or two authors, at least, that do not use {{Scriptor}} but instead use the something closer to the French style. Thoughts?--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 08:30, 25 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with template content transcluded across subdomains being further transcluded

There is no effective way to control changes to formatting or even content on the remote wiki

The two issues are closely related. One editor in particular has gone through and used {{iwpage}} to transclude thousands of partial pages to fr.ws (see Specialis:Conlationes/Fabrice_Dury). The problem with further transclusion is that these cannot then be transcluded to fr.ws mainspace without loss of all the latin content and vice versa unless both projects have implemented another complex and problematic template: {{iwpages}} which fr doesn't have. To do it for sections requires a third such template: {{iwpageSection}} which neither fr nor we have, so the whole process seems pointless, at least until the relevant templates are imported. None of the templates are well documented anywhere, the best documentation being at en.ws: en:Template:Iwpages

The second issue is even more serious. Should we wish to set the latin (or even the bilingual) text up here we would want to format it to our standards but it would be in use on a remote project. On a page where parts of a single page are in one language and parts are in another this is particularly problematic. The best solution, I think, would be each project transcribes (or imports and formats to local standard) every page that they wish to use locally in any form and that {{iwpage}} be deprecated. Otherwise, at best there will always be a work that is formatted differently on the same page or on facing pages, since even if we wanted to format the same we would have to import all of the templates as well as the .css in order to do so and a change on either wiki to style would throw the work out of sync. I have run into this myself with Liber:The poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus - Francis Warre Cornish.djvu which would work great to support Catullus's works but would be very difficult to format the same as preferred on en.ws.

My inclination is to not use {{iwpage}} at all and to set up all works on both projects. Pages which currently use {{iwpage}} can easily be imported. The problem is, if I wish to set up a work locally, that is already invoking {{iwpage}} I can't without either 1) notifying the other project that they need to import the work if they don't want the formatting to change, or 2) uploading another scan of the same work under a different name so that I can work with it independently here. I have many objections against the entire division of subdomains; however, if we are going to be divided we cannot be beholden to all the subdomains that want to transclude latin works. Thoughts?--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 12:30, 25 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some template to signal that a word is misprinted and must be substituted with another? If not, may I create {{Errata|wrong word|correct word}}, on the example of it:Template:Pt, en:Template:ShowTransclude and their siblings? Candalua 08:27, 26 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Let me look around before you create anything. Can you give a link to the example? We don't have a policy here on correcting obvious typos, so the important thing is that it's marked. But we don't want to unnecessarily duplicate templates, so I'll look around. Two other choices would be en:Template:SIC which shows the correction as a tooltip an en:Template:Sic, which does nothing and merely provides a marker. Generally the latter is used when the "error" is not a typo at all but presumed to be an error by the author (or predates current spellings) and probably isn't useful here. It's important in en.ws to mark things that should not be changed. I think we should either use the one you are talking about or SIC.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 09:52, 26 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. So if I get it right, on en.source you don't actually correct the error, but simply show the proposed correction with SIC, or just mark the wrong word with Sic and nothing else? On it.source we have a very different rule: if we are sure about the correction, because it's really a trivial error or because the original source has an Errata corrige section where the publisher shows errors made during printing and corrections, we correct them and the correction will show up in ns0 instead of the error. Otherwise, if we're not sure, we just leave it as it is. Candalua 18:33, 26 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though if there is an errata published with the work, we make the normally make the correction and link to the errata. For other errors, the policy there is that there is no way to know what was a typographic error and what was the author's mistake or even intent. Normally {{Sic}} is used just as a marker on works where the "errors" were in the original of a very important work, like the US Declaration of Independence. Whereas {{SIC|Foobare|Foobar}} is used to show apparent typographic errors. The former does nothing, the latter creates a tool tip that would display "SIC:Foobar" below the displayed word "Foobare". The philosophy is essentially that we are curators not "editors", in the publishing sense. Errata are an exception because the publisher obviously would have fixed them but for the unreasonable effort required at the time - and they were identified in the original work. Any change from what is shown in scans beyond that is considered an annotation and those are the subject of current dispute at en.ws--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 15:10, 29 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and how do you do the correction? Do you have a template, or simply write the corrected word in the place of the wrong one? Candalua 16:04, 29 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Well, on en.ws with the template {{Sic}} no correction is made; with the template <nowkiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> the correction is in the template as show above, but to clarify {{SIC|error|corrected text}}. On some works, errata are shown in a more express way on the page but the correction shows in the mainspace. This is done with statutes and things like that where the original is important but the errata are officially published. I think that {{SIC}} is still used but with a conditional.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 10:19, 18 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

This was actually something I recently added to my list of mw pages I'm working on. Can you put the code you were thinking of somewhere, say the talk page to my list or somewhere in your userspace, so we can work out what we want it to do? e.g. the fr version of this page is very complex, the en version just redirects to their standard header. On a related topic, personally, I'm not in favor of every work having a header on the top of the first mainspace page when it really just duplicates part of the work. It also causes confusion because users think the template should show the author in the nominative whereas the title page in the work is usually in the genitive and we should be reproducing the text as per the work. de.ws omits the header on the first page to good effect in my opinion (though their infobox eats a column down the right hand side of the page). I am not suggesting we don't need this template, I'm simply saying we should work out what it's going to do and think about application.

I've been working on this but have also been implementing dynamic layouts so, too many things changing at once. I also have been working on a concept for the proofreadpage header template similar to the de.ws textdaten box, which I think could work really well in our layouts where we center the text with relatively tight margins, similar to fr.ws So please, don't implement broadly right now; use {{titulus}} instead.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 12:25, 2 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

some pages are fully protected (only sysop can edit), against vandalism I guess. But with this kind of protection, I can't fix interwiki links on them. Is it possible to make them semi-protected? here's the list: [6]Candalua 23:21, 27 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

I will temporarily reduce the protection to semi so you can edit them. I'm not sure if they need to stay at semi. I will re-protect if there is no other discussion since at some point there was either a decision or a practice to lock texts that had been completed, as is done on de.ws and I don't want to override that without discussion. Personally, I think it's a good practice to protect stable works on a low traffic project (I think I'm the only one actually patrolling the recent changes); but now it may be better to consider pending/flagged revisions and then we could simply give flagged bots the reviewer/autoreviewer rights. Thanks for bringing this up. Here's a full list since the pages will no longer show up on the SpecialPages report:

Perfectum est. - except Pagina prima, please post the interwiki links (here or in userspace with a link here) for the main page and an admin will make that edit. I found only one other page that was already semi-protected, Actus contritionis, it had been reduced last year, apparently. Please let us know when these are done and we'll re-protect, subject to further discussion. Thanks.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 14:16, 29 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I didn't say that, but of course Pagina prima should stay fully protected. As for the others, I will run the bot this evening, so tomorrow you can reprotect them if you want. Anyway, if we want to open a discussion, since there does not seem to be much vandalism or edit wars here, I propose to keep semi-protection. Candalua 14:31, 29 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

protection of completed works - Flagged Revisions as an alternative?[recensere]

See the above discussion. Protecting works that are validated/100% has apparently been practiced here in the past and is common on some other projects (e.g. de.ws). The procedure has it draw backs, mainly as above with bots doing mass formatting or template changes, interwiki language links, and categorization; but can also affect trusted editors trying to correct errors by earlier editors. On the other hand, this site has low traffic and I believe I'm the only active patroller of the recent changes lately, or at least the only admin. I'm bound to miss something or be away. I recently noticed a request for a deletion that had been around for several months. I only saw it because it was apparently someone exercising the right to vanish as it was acted on by a Steward or Global Sysop and showed up in the recent changes.

An alternative might be to implement flagged/reviewed revisions, as is active on mediawiki and some other wikisources. This creates a stable version of the page, which I think is exactly what we want to have, without requiring draconian measures like full protection. All active users and approved bots could be immediately given reviewer/autoreviewer status and more than 90% of new edits would be confirmed immediately; new editors who are active on other projects would be automatically be given the status as soon as we saw them. Vandalism would not show, even if unnoticed for several weeks. I propose we implement this on la.ws page space and main space.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 14:57, 29 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of a page with flagged revisions: [7] This is the default/"stable" version. If you click on the "Pending Revisions" tab you see the unreviewed version. (BTW, the unreviewed edits are mine ;) ). More and more, I'm thinking this would be an excellent tool for us. We'd make every current editor a reviewer and as new pending changes popped up we'd quickly check to see if the editor was in good standing elsewhere. If so, we'd simply give them reviewer status. If not, we'd keep an eye on their edits for a bit or, if they turned out to be a vandal, block them. We'd avoid ever having to worry that some vandalism would stay around ruining a lot of work for weeks or months but at the same time avoid ever having to protect any pages. If it ever became a problem, we'd simply have it turned off.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 17:45, 10 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a stable version. Sounds like a good idea for the smaller wikis like this Latin wikisource. I support this idea. --Mattwj2002 17:53, 10 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

I saw it in action in small and big wikis. While I think that an active wiki doesn't need such a feature, a Wikisource and a quiet one like this project would take advantage using this feature. - εΔω 16:38, 1 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are tested for quite some time on German and English WPs, possibly elsewhere, and I'm not fully convinced yet. For a small wiki like la-WS, a low maintenance option like semi-protection would possibly be the better approach, preventing vandalism (and useful edits) by anons without much further ado. It's somewhat rude, but straightforward. The system with flagged revisions, on the other hand, allows edits by anons, but does not display them, and then asks other editors to review those edits. That creates extra work load, and some confusion, too. But I'm not opposed to a test here. --Matthead 01:54, 17 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

Considering the time that has passed and the number of participants which is about as much as can be expected here, I'm going to submit a bugzilla to implement with the understanding that consensus is to at least try it. Matthead's points are good, we're small enough that if we don't like it after several months we'll just say so without any process. --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 20:37, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Be care full with vague statements like "lets try it". Do you mean that you wanted it enabled and then at any time later will need a another consensus to remove it? Or do you mean that after some time X, that it unless there is consensus to keep it, then it should be disabled? There should be more specific agreement on this first. Aaron Schulz 20:55, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Aaron, for this project, the above is a fairly clear consensus but a consensus to change wouldn't take more than the same number of people, one experienced editor he didn't object to a test and 3 said they support it. "Let's try it" in this case just means that I understand Matthead's concern that he's not fully convinced and we could remove it later if there are problems, but that would take further discussion. I understand the phrase could seem squirrelly, but I confident we agree enough to simply implement it.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 21:06, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

I support this (not as a trial), on the understanding that we will review it in a few months (and form a new consensus if its not working). John Vandenberg 21:33, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

It has been enabled.

I agree with John re the review in a few months - though I think it should be optional, that is, if no one brings it up I don't think we need to raise the issue as a formality.

A few notes on this

There are two rights, editor and reviewer, the former can mark a page as "checked", the latter can mark a page as "quality" (this is confused by the fact that the "editor" right to mark edits as "checked" is called "review", whereas the "reviewer" right to mark edits as "quality" is called "validate" - not to be confused with proofread validation)

Even admins and crats have to have the rights given it seems, subject to objections, I will go through and give all admins and crats reviewer rights and any other user who is in good standing on another WMF wiki I will give editor rights unless anyone objects.

One thought that has immediately come to me on seeing the first few edits it applies to: when text is added to mainspace without supporting scans, it can only be effectively reviewed by those who can positively identify the source AND know sufficient Latin to verify its integrity. Notwithstanding, all crats and admins should also be reviewers, since we can be fairly certain of scanned texts and since we hopefully all know what we're doing and when not to do it.

Do we want to require two checks of texts without scans, even if the first check comes from OM or one of the others who are very good in Latin? I.e. a separate check and validation? I think that's probably unnecessary, though on the other hand it would be consistent with proofreading in pagespace.

In the (rather unlikely) event that a page with scans is validated (as in second proofreading) by a user without reviewer rights, we could grant a bot reviewer rights. No need to do this until and unless that happens but just something to think about.

Pages in namespaces other than page and main still need to be checked. Not a big deal at our volume and it will point to users who need rights. Later we might want to ask to have that changed.

Approved Bots' edits don't need to be checked but do need to be validated. --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 22:45, 29 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

More information:

Apparently, the extension is retroactive but appears to apply in main and pagespace (not sure what others, I read the documentation when I mentioned it months ago, but can't recall, I will re-read). I will work on getting a bot job set up to mark all page space pages where the status = proofread to "checked" and all pages where the status = validated to "quality". I don't think we need to go back through validated pages and review them. Though it may not be practicable for the bot to check whether there has been another editor since the validation, which could be a small problem.

I've made all admins + Accurimbono reviewers.

I've made several trusted users editors and suggest we all make everyone an editor whom we know from another subdomain--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 00:14, 30 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

It appears that it was incorrectly set up to cover mainspace, template space, and image space. I will re-open the bugzilla with a request that image be replaced with page space.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 05:10, 30 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with the import function. See the Specialis:Acta/import. From fr:page:Foo, it records the import coming from fr:pagina:foo, from fr:Modèle:Foo, it incorrectly identifies the target as Formula:Modèle:Foo.

MediaWiki:Layouts.js enables dynamic layouts. It appears that layout 2 is the default at present which is nearly identical to our standard mainspace format. Let me know if there are issues. <div class="indented-text"></div> should no longer do anything.

The comment about Layout 2 was apparently a caching error on my end. I have rearranged the code so that the format that is most like our standard is Layout 1. Please let me know if text doesn't appear centered with wide margins by default.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 21:53, 5 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

There is a known bug with <pages/> in which it drops the last page number when pages are skipped. The only solutions thus far have been to 1) ensure the skipped page is marked as "no text" (and either blank or contains {{iwpage}} and include the page number in the range (this is not always possible, for example if the page has local content but it not desired in a particular transclusion) or 2) use {{page}} for transclusion of at least the final page. This has resulted in some cases where {{iwpage}}, a problematic template itself, has been used prophylacticly on this site. Now there is a .js work-around (though not truly a solution) and it will hopefully be implemented soon (it would be best to be done on old.ws as it's part of an imported script - though I may test it here by replacing the imported script with the hack). Thanks to Inductiveload for the hack. --Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 07:52, 9 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Perfectum est. Inductiveload's solution was implemented on old.ws after testing here. It's not the ideal solution, which would be to actually figure out why the PageNumbers.js script doesn't work right, but it does solve the problem. If anyone notices any problems with page numbers please let me know.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 17:57, 10 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

en: Yes, {{TextQuality}}. But there is no reason to use this if there are scans. The colored status bar will show the status of the text based on the % completion of the scans. fr: Oui {{TextQuality}}, mais ce n'est pas necessaire si vous avez scans.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 18:06, 10 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I meant an indicator that you can put on the Author's page, for example, after each text indicated : so that, people looking for texts by Cicero can know that "De Amicitia" is "completed and validated", while "In Verrem" need to be reviewed (that's just an example, I did not check) - we use them very much on Author's pages on fr, and it's very useful to easily check what needs to be done :) --Hsarrazin 18:31, 10 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I saw the word "list" but didn't know what you meant. I've never seen that. I've often wondered if there were a way to display the status bar beside works. Maybe we should consider importing the template from fr.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 20:22, 10 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no technician, but on it.source there's a template which adds automatically updating information about a text: the system is not smooth to implement, but is worth studying. Please ask Candalua or Alex brollo to have more details. - εΔω 09:49, 11 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Disputatio conclusa :Babel now in use and all other systems are deprecated on this project.

The title says it all. What shall we do now? - εΔω 16:41, 1 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

It has been long talked about, how does it work? Is it better than our system? In what ways? Is Meta or it.ws switching? They both use similar systems to us. For other wikis that use the old babel system, it's a no-brainer, for us I'm not sure it's a big deal either way.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 09:32, 4 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

You can see a test of the new system on my user page below our system. It seems to largely duplicate our system. Not sure if it has categorization advantages/disadvantages. Also see m:Talk:Babel extension for a lot of discussion about this. John Vandenberg was a proponent of the system for a long time and was instrumental in getting it moving again. I would like to see his thoughts. The comments on meta suggest that it was deployed hastily without real development (it was stalled for years and then rushed to deployment when a board member and then a super developer got involved, as I recall). I think we might be better to opt-out until the bugs are worked out at least. Fortunately, since we don't use english anymore in our category or template names related to babel, we should find none of the conflicts that some other wikis have.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 10:40, 4 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

Hello Doug. Although I'm not fond of the old fluency levels used by the extension (we put a lot of thought into Meta's new fluency level descriptions), I don't think we should maintain conflicting systems with incompatible translations. We're already migrating Metawiki to use the extension exclusively.

The main problem we're encountering on Meta is the extension's inflexibility, which εΔω has already mentioned. We have some CSS tweaks on Meta to enable custom page layouts, but the extension doesn't support the one-category-per-language structure used on Meta. A request to make it configurable (#31074) was recently rejected, and the outlook is bleak on a request to allow new-style unified categories (#31311). We have temporarily disabled the categories until we can find a solution. —Pathoschild 01:54:35, 10 octobri 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about costumizability... It looks like many hacks can be achieved through common.css, but I currently agree with Doug's well written thoughts. We don't really need to opt-out, we'd rather try to get this system going like we actually want and then replace the old system with this new one (notice, I'm the guy who spent quite a lot of time tailoring three different Babel systems through five years: this words are far form painless for me to write). - εΔω 09:59, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently searching through meta and MediaWiki.org for information about the css classes involed in the extension, and in the meanwhile I'm making some experiments in my personal vector.css in it.source... stay tuned. - εΔω 06:23, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

I was looking around for some texts about the Sámi ("Lappish") people in Norway/Scandinavia (using the names Knud Leem and Rasmus Rask, two of the people who first studied them and their langauge). Sadly (for me), these texts from the 18th/19th century contain some Latin text. I have uploaded one such document that is written entirely in Latin: Liber:Anniversaria in memoriam reipublicæ sacræ et literariæ.djvu‎. Another is the file File:Samer.djvu which is bilingual with Dano-Norwegian and Latin text published side-by-side. There is another similar volume with side-by-side Dano-Norwegian text as well. My suggestion would be to let this be an interwiki-project, where :la: proofreads the Latin text, and :no: proofreads the Dano-Norwegian, and then we provide interwiki links to one another. :-)

When it comes to the specifics of proofreading Sámi words, this seems to present some problems. Several letters seem to have a macron above them, with the macron having a downwards hook at the end. I have so far chosen to proofread them according to modern Sámi spelling. So instead of "C̄", I use "Č". The reason is that these letters were inspired by Slavic languages which do use the háček, (and it's easier to input than the macron). The sign "ɔ:" frequently occurs in Danish/Norwegian texts from the 19th century as an abbreviation for "det er" (id est, i.e.). This sign is also used in some of these Latin texts. V85 12:49, 19 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is discussing changes to its Terms of Use. The discussion can be found at Talk:Terms of use. Everyone is invited to join in. Because the new version of Terms of use is not in final form, we are not able to present official translations of it. Volunteers are welcome to translate it, as German volunteers have done at m:Terms of use/de, but we ask that you note at the top that the translation is unofficial and may become outdated as the English version is changed. The translation request can be found at m:Translation requests/WMF/Terms of Use 2 -- Maggie Dennis, Community Liaison 01:02, 27 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

At Doug's request, I have run SDrewthbot through the laPage: ns to correct the line feed edits; now Perfectum est. The fix covers all edits from the 1th Oct when the error was introduced. Billinghurst 03:30, 29 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Billinghurst, that's 10th of October I believe, just to clarify. If anyone wants me to unflag sDrewthbot, please just say so, but it's an active maintenance bot with a trusted user operator so I don't see any good reason to - except that it wasn't discussed. We may need the bot's help again.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 14:27, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I propose to flag User:CandalBot. The bot owner is a trusted user (and now an admin): User:Candalua. The bot runs periodically primarily for interwiki language links and can flood the recent changes.--Doug.(Disputatio•Conlationes) 14:59, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)